The New York Times endorses a candidate for president | Politics

The New York Times’ editorial board made an endorsement for president on Monday. And they endorsed … not Donald Trump.

Technically, they did endorse Vice President Kamala Harris, they usually do tout the various the reason why Harris is their decide. But, largely, they’re endorsing Harris as a result of she occurs to be the one working towards Trump.

The Times editorial board began proper out of the gate by blasting the previous president, writing, “It is hard to imagine a candidate more unworthy to serve as president of the United States than Donald Trump. He has proved himself morally unfit for an office that asks its occupant to put the good of the nation above self-interest. He has proved himself temperamentally unfit for a role that requires the very qualities — wisdom, honesty, empathy, courage, restraint, humility, discipline — that he most lacks.”

Before even writing Harris’ identify, the Times board goes on to write down, “Those disqualifying characteristics are compounded by everything else that limits his ability to fulfill the duties of the president: his many criminal charges, his advancing age, his fundamental lack of interest in policy and his increasingly bizarre cast of associates. This unequivocal, dispiriting truth — Donald Trump is not fit to be president — should be enough for any voter who cares about the health of our country and the stability of our democracy to deny him re-election.”

The endorsement says all of it within the headline: “The Only Patriotic Choice for President.”

The editorial goes on to reward Harris, however additionally they criticize her for not being extra detailed in her imaginative and prescient and particular insurance policies, particularly in unscripted encounters. The board provides, “Given the stakes of this election, Ms. Harris may think that she is running a campaign designed to minimize the risks of an unforced error — answering journalists’ questions and offering greater policy detail could court controversy, after all — under the belief that being the only viable alternative to Mr. Trump may be enough to bring her to victory. That strategy may ultimately prove winning, but it’s a disservice to the American people and to her own record. And leaving the public with a sense that she is being shielded from tough questions, as Mr. Biden has been, could backfire by undermining her core argument that a capable new generation stands ready to take the reins of power.”

However, compared to Trump, The New York Times thinks the selection is clear. The board writes concerning the hazard Trump poses to our democracy, in addition to all that has occurred since he left the White House in January 2021: “In the years since he left office, Mr. Trump was convicted on felony charges of falsifying business records, was found liable in civil court for sexual abuse and faces two, possibly three, other criminal cases. He has continued to stoke chaos and encourage violence and lawlessness whenever it suits his political aims, most recently promoting vicious lies against Haitian immigrants. He recognizes that ordinary people — voters, jurors, journalists, election officials, law enforcement officers and many others who are willing to do their duty as citizens and public servants — have the power to hold him to account, so he has spent the past three and a half years trying to undermine them and sow distrust in anyone or any institution that might stand in his way.”

The board concludes: “Kamala Harris is the only choice.”

This actually comes as no shock. The Times hasn’t endorsed a Republican since Dwight Eisenhower ran for reelection in 1956.

But we must always ask: Does a Times endorsement imply something? Or, perhaps a higher query is, what does a Times endorsement imply?

Well, first off, right here’s a reminder for these not versed in newspapers: The editorial board is separate from the newsroom. The editorial board provides the official stance of the paper or, extra clearly, speaks on behalf of the homeowners and/or writer. But it has nothing to do with the newsroom, the political employees of the paper and people who truly cowl the candidates.

The Times editorial board tells readers, “The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.”

The “separate from the newsroom” half emphasizes that they don’t affect — or aren't purported to — information protection.

So again to the query: What does it imply?

The Times’ endorsement of Harris doubtless gained’t sway any voters at this level. Maybe the arguments it makes will give some voters a second thought, however most likely not.

But it does make public the Times’ official stance on who must be the following president. And the Times’ level that Harris’ marketing campaign is taking part in it protected is a truthful one which we would bear in mind ought to Harris lose in November.

Most of all, the endorsement is a doc we will look again at years from now to file this election and the moments main as much as it.

The vice presidential debate between Republican JD Vance and Democrat Tim Walz will happen tonight, and I wished to dig a little deeper into the talk guidelines and format — particularly the fact-checking facet of it.

CBS News is internet hosting the talk, with Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan serving as moderators. It is CBS News’ intent to facilitate the talk. What does that imply? Well, they may ask the questions, and if a candidate says one thing unfaithful it is going to largely be as much as the opposite candidate to level that out. The moderators might conceivably prod a candidate by saying one thing like, “Would you like to respond to that claim?”

My Poynter colleague Angie Drobnic Holan, director of the worldwide fact-checking community, told The Associated Press’ David Bauder, “ … you’re basically off-loading one of your journalistic responsibilities onto the candidates themselves, so I don’t think that it’s ideal. It takes journalistic courage to be willing to fact-check the candidates, because the candidates are absolutely going to complain about it. I don’t think the moderators’ first goal is to avoid controversy.”

However, if a candidate doesn't name out his opponent for saying one thing that isn’t true, it’s attainable the moderators might provide some clarification. Would they go so far as to say, “What (the candidate) just said is not accurate” or one thing like that? We shall see.

Claudia Milne, the senior vice president for requirements and practices at CBS News, told The New York Times’ Michael M. Grynbaum and John Koblin, “The goal of the debate is to facilitate a good debate between the candidates, and the moderators will give them the opportunity to fact-check each other in real time.”

CBS News Confirmed shall be dwell fact-checking the talk on its weblog, and CBS viewers shall be directed to it through the tv feed through a QR code. However, although the talk shall be simulcast on different networks, the QR code will solely be seen on CBS. If you watch the talk on a totally different channel, you gained’t see it.

Still, there’s a concern that if the moderators don't crack down with fact-checking then the candidates shall be free to say no matter they need. For occasion, Media Matters’ Matt Gertz notes, that left unchecked, Vance might proceed his (and the Trump marketing campaign’s) baseless claims about immigrants. Vance has repeatedly put forth the unfaithful conspiracy that Haitans are consuming the pets of residents in Springfield, Ohio.

Gertz wrote, “Since Vance has publicly touted his willingness to say dishonest things about immigrants in order to drive media attention to the issue, he seems likely to push a version of Trump’s lie on Tuesday night.”

Will CBS News’ moderators push again? That stays to be seen.

Oh, another notice. The candidates’ microphones are supposed to remain on all through the talk. In the 2 presidential debates this marketing campaign season, the microphones had been to be lower off if a candidate spoke out of flip. However, there have been instances within the debate between Trump and Harris the place ABC allowed Trump to speak even when the moderators wished to maneuver on to the following query. As a outcome, in that debate according to CNN, Trump spoke for 42 minutes and 52 seconds, whereas Harris spoke for 37 minutes and 36 seconds.

To get you prepared for tonight, The Los Angeles Times’ Stephen Battaglio with “Meet the Walz-Vance debate moderators: Margaret Brennan and Norah O’Donnell.”

A employee strikes particles within the aftermath of Hurricane Helene, on Monday, in Asheville, N.C. (AP Photo/Mike Stewart)

Hurricane Helene turned out to be a monster. The Category 4 hurricane scooted up the Gulf of Mexico simply west of the Tampa Bay space earlier than making landfall within the Big Bend a part of the state. It then raced by way of the Southeast — up by way of Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee and the Carolinas.

From storm surge on the West Coast of Florida to torrential rains by way of the central Appalachians, Hurricane Helene flooded whole communities and cities, leaving some to both depart without end or rebuild nearly from scratch.

As of Monday afternoon, the storm was accountable for at the very least 125 deaths — a third of them in North Carolina. That quantity is prone to climb. Millions misplaced energy, and a few won't have it for weeks.

Here’s a take a look at among the newest notable protection:

As I wrote about final week, Hoda Kotb has determined to step down as co-host of the NBC “Today” present someday early subsequent yr. Kotb simply turned 60, and says she desires to dedicate extra time to her younger youngsters, and is seeking to see what else her life and profession have to supply. She additionally goes out with “Today” present scores doing effectively.

Puck’s Dylan Byers writes that “all that is indisputably true,” and that Kotb kicked across the concept of leaving after she turned 50.

“Nevertheless,” Byers wrote, “the choreography of Hoda’s exit additionally belied some unpalatable financial realities that the smoothie-sipping viewers didn’t actually need to listen to about. Hoda was making greater than $20 million per yr at NBC, in response to sources with direct information of her wage. (‘Today” co-host) Savannah (Guthrie) also makes more than $20 million; (former co-host Matt) Lauer had made $25 million.) NBC executives loved Hoda and knew her value to the brand, but also made clear to her agents that such stratospheric contracts were no longer justifiable given the industry’s inexorable decline.”

Byers reported that Kotb doubtless was in for a pay lower had she stayed.

And this could possibly be the start of a pattern. Byers writes, “After all, the current economic arrangement is entirely unsustainable. ‘Good Morning America’ co-hosts George Stephanopoulos, Robin Roberts, and Michael Strahan cost Disney at least $75 million a year, a ludicrous expense that will need to be greatly reduced during the next round of contract negotiations. Both Stephanopoulos and Roberts are 63, and may determine they don’t want to be paid less to wake up before 4 a.m. to service a shrinking audience.”

We additionally might see strikes that may finally get monetary savings on the night information anchor desks. Norah O’Donnell is leaving the “CBS Evening News” and being changed by two anchors who're doubtless making much less cash mixed than O’Donnell. And, Byers reviews, “Lester Holt, now 65, is likely to step down from NBC Nightly News following the inauguration and may be replaced by Tom Llamas, a far less expensive talent who has spent three years getting his reps in on the streaming service.”

Have suggestions or a tip? Email Poynter senior media author Tom Jones at [email protected].

The Poynter Report is our each day media e-newsletter. To have it delivered to your inbox Monday-Friday, join right here.